Skip to main content

About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
, we still have this bigger challenge out there of how are we going to fix the deficit and debt problem in this country? we know we have to make hard choices. we know the parties have to work together, and they've got to get to work on this as quickly as possible. >> maya, with the greatest of respect, it seems to me your logic is all over the place. it's very clear the nub of the discussion, the squealing that we have at the moment is whether or not to extend tax cuts. that is, in effect, saying we are going to balloon the deficit further. this is not a conversation about actually fixing the debt, is it? that's not what we're talking about at the moment. we're squealing over, let's keep the deficit big. you seem to be arguing that that's exactly what we should be doing. >> let me explain, because it is more complicated than often things are discussed in washington. the problem with the fiscal cliff is it would put in place deficit reduction, but it would put in deficit reduction too much, too quickly, and with the wrong parts of the budget. so it would let all of the tax cuts expire, i
and services among consumers, they are chronically bad at creating a surplus between deficit regions. remember -- if that comes first, suddenly the money lender who later becomes a banker who later becomes wall street plays a hugely significant role in this process. the banker is the conduct of that -- conduit of that recycling mechanism. when they get an increase in proportion as the result of their mediation of that process. the banker is the same thing as a clothes maker. suddenly, there are two things that must have been. 1 -- society will demand that banks are not allowed to go to the wall. then bankers are affectively blanche, free money for themselves. and the whole mechanism breaks down in 2008. in the eurozone, we made a huge error in europe of binding together these economies. this is not the first time these things that happened. it happened in the united states of america. you have disparate economies in the united states of america that are bound together monetarily. what is it that keeps the united states together? you had a great expression in the 1930 -- you had a great depress
kind of deficit the losers are facial as we go into the new year. "squawk on the street" is back in a minute. [ male announcer ] feeling like a shadow of your former self? c'mon, michael! get in the game! [ male announcer ] don't have the hops for hoops with your buddies? lost your appetite for romance? and your mood is on its way down. you might not just be getting older. you might have a treatable condition called low testosterone or low t. millions of men, forty-five or older, may have low t. so talk to your doctor about low t. hey, michael! [ male announcer ] and step out of the shadows. hi! how are you? [ male announcer ] learn more at isitlowt.com. [ laug hey! [ male announcer ] it's that time of year again. time for citi price rewind. because your daughter really wants that pink castle thing. and you really don't want to pay more than you have to. only citi price rewind automatically searches for the lowest price. and if it finds one, you get refunded the difference. just use your citi card and register your purchase online. have a super sparkly day! ok. [ male announcer ]
security came from a sound economy. he was a deficit hawk. he controlled government spending and package. his famous speech warning against military-industrial complex came at the end of his presidency but, in fact, he been working on it all a long. mostly behind the scenes. heaven help us, he liked to say, that we'll get a president who knows less about the military than i do. this approach to the military was not just about the economy. in the berlin crisis in 58-59 and in early crisis with korea and vietnam in 1953, 54, the almost straight, the suez crisis in 1956, eisenhower was playing a bigger game for higher stakes. a west point cadet and a young army officer, ike had been a great poker player. indeed, he was so good that he had to give it up. he was taking too much money from his fellow officers and it was hurting his career. he switched to bridge, but he never forgot how to block it with the soviets he bluffed with nuclear weapons. as only a real warrior can, ike hated war. seriously, the great war hero had never been in combat. in world war i had been stateside training troops
real national security was from a sound economy. he was a deficit hawk, boy, we could use him today, who controlled government spending and taxes. the famous speech warning against the industrial complex was at the end of the presidency, but worked on it all along behind the scenes. heaven help us he liked to say when we get a president who knows less about the military than i do. it was not about the economy or saving money. in the berlin crisis and earlier crisis with korea and vietnam in 1953 over the strait in 1954-55 and 1958 in the suez crisis in 1956, he was planning a bigger gain for higher stakes. west point cadet and young army officer, ike was a great poker player, and, indeed, so good, he had to give it up. he was taking too much money from the fellow officers hurting his career. he switched to bridge, but he never forgot how to bluff. the soviets, he bluffed with nuclear weapons. as only a real warrior can, ike hated war. curiously, the great war hero was never in combat. in world war i, he was training troops to his great chagrin, and world war ii, he was too valuable
to people in united states of america who are in need of help, or help reduce the deficit that was testified to be the greatest national security threat to the united states of america. it is a matter of priorities. i appreciate the very noble -- i emphasize the word noble -- effort to help people who are in harm's also way in various parts of the world. my colleague from florida mentioned somalia. certainly in vietnam we tried to do the noble things. we're in a different financial reality. in the absence of a national security interest in the congo, i am afraid that sequestration will force us to retract even though we may wish to the contrary. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> a couple of questions. sequestration is not only obama's, but also our responsibility. i believe we voted for it. >> i did not vote for it. >> we talked about this whole issue. it has been suggested that perhaps -- >> $80 million. is that more or less correct? [indiscernible] >> we will hear that in a few moments. if that is correct, i would point out that this really is a national security issue for america
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6